ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Steven Levitt - Economist
Steven Levitt's eye-opening Freakonomics took economic theory into the real world of suburban parenting and urban drug gangs, turning conventional wisdom upside-down.

Why you should listen

With his 2005 book Freakonomics (co-authored with Stephen Dubner, a writer who profiled him for the New York Times), Steven Levitt carried hardcore economic method into the squishy real world and produced a pop-culture classic. Freakonomics is both an economics textbook and a series of cautionary tales about the fallacy of conventional wisdom. Levitt examines the links between real-world events, and finds many instances where the data simply doesn't back up popular belief.

He asks provocative questions: If selling crack is so lucrative, why do dealers live with their mothers? Does parental doting really improve children's test scores? Did New York City's crime rate really drop because of police tactics (or population trends)? His controversial answers stir debate, and sometimes backlash.

Read Steven Levitt's Reddit AMA >>

More profile about the speaker
Steven Levitt | Speaker | TED.com
TEDGlobal 2005

Steven Levitt: Surprising stats about child carseats

Steven Levitt 對兒童汽車座椅的研究

Filmed:
1,039,922 views

Steven Levitt分享了他對於兒童汽車座椅的研究數據。數據顯示,在降低兒童的車禍死亡率方面,汽車座椅並不比安全帶的效果好。但在自由問答環節裏,他卻發出了一個極其重要的警告。
- Economist
Steven Levitt's eye-opening Freakonomics took economic theory into the real world of suburban parenting and urban drug gangs, turning conventional wisdom upside-down. Full bio

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:18
Once一旦 upon a time, there was a dread恐懼 disease疾病 that afflicted折磨 children孩子.
0
0
5000
很久以前,一種很可怕的疾病曾經困擾著很多兒童
00:23
And in fact事實, among其中 all the diseases疾病 that existed存在 in this land土地,
1
5000
4000
事實上,在目前人類所知的疾病中,
00:27
it was the worst最差. It killed殺害 the most children孩子.
2
9000
3000
那是最惡劣的一種病。它奪去了大多數兒童的生命。
00:30
And along沿 came來了 a brilliant輝煌 inventor發明者, a scientist科學家,
3
12000
3000
有這麼一位聰明的發明家,也是個科學家,
00:33
who came來了 up with a partial局部 cure治愈 for that disease疾病.
4
15000
3000
他研究出一種方法,能在一定程度上治愈這種疾病。
00:36
And it wasn't perfect完善. Many許多 children孩子 still died死亡,
5
18000
4000
該方法並非盡善盡美。依然有很多兒童身亡。
00:40
but it was certainly當然 better than what they had before.
6
22000
3000
不過,肯定比之前的情況要好得多。
00:43
And one of the good things about this cure治愈 was that it was free自由,
7
25000
6000
這種方法最大的好處是免費,
00:49
virtually實質上 free自由, and was very easy簡單 to use.
8
31000
2000
幾乎是免費,而且使用簡單。
00:51
But the worst最差 thing about it was that you couldn't不能 use it
9
33000
3000
但這種方法的缺點是你不能
00:54
on the youngest最年輕的 children孩子, on infants嬰兒, and on one-year-olds一歲的孩子.
10
36000
4000
用在小孩子,比如說嬰兒或者一歲大的孩子身上。
00:58
And so, as a consequence後果, a few少數 years年份 later後來,
11
40000
2000
結果幾年以後,
01:00
another另一個 scientist科學家 -- perhaps也許 maybe this scientist科學家
12
42000
2000
另外一名科學家,這位科學家可能
01:02
not quite相當 as brilliant輝煌 as the one who had preceded之前 him,
13
44000
4000
沒有像他之前那位那麼聰明,
01:06
but building建造 on the invention發明 of the first one --
14
48000
2000
但在前輩的發明基礎上
01:08
came來了 up with a second第二 cure治愈.
15
50000
3000
他研究出了第二種方法。
01:11
And the beauty美女 of the second第二 cure治愈 for this disease疾病
16
53000
3000
第二種方法的優點
01:14
was that it could be used on infants嬰兒 and one-year-olds一歲的孩子.
17
56000
4000
是你可以將其用於嬰兒和一歲大的兒童身上。
01:18
And the problem問題 with this cure治愈 was it was very expensive昂貴,
18
60000
5000
但這個方法有一個問題:那就是非常昂貴,
01:23
and it was very complicated複雜 to use.
19
65000
1000
而且使用起來非常複雜。
01:24
And although雖然 parents父母 tried試著 as hard as they could to use it properly正確,
20
66000
4000
雖然家長們竭盡全力依照正確的方法來使用,
01:28
almost幾乎 all of them ended結束 up using運用 it wrong錯誤 in the end結束.
21
70000
4000
但絕大數的家長最後還是不得要領。
01:32
But what they did, of course課程, since以來 it was so complicated複雜 and expensive昂貴,
22
74000
3000
所以他們的做法是,當然,因為這方法複雜而又昂貴,
01:35
they only used it on the zero-year-olds零歲的孩子 and the one-year-olds一歲的孩子.
23
77000
3000
他們僅將其用在零歲和一歲大的兒童。
01:38
And they kept不停 on using運用 the existing現有 cure治愈 that they had
24
80000
3000
而繼續使用以前的老方法來針對
01:41
on the two-year-olds兩歲的孩子 and up.
25
83000
1000
兩歲和兩歲以上的兒童
01:42
And this went on for quite相當 some time. People were happy快樂.
26
84000
2000
這種情況持續了很長一段時間。人們還算滿意。
01:44
They had their two cures治愈. Until直到 a particular特定 mother母親,
27
86000
3000
他們有兩種方法可以用。直到有一位母親,
01:47
whose誰的 child兒童 had just turned轉身 two, died死亡 of this disease疾病.
28
89000
5000
她的孩子在剛满兩歲的時候死於這種疾病。
01:52
And she thought to herself她自己, "My child兒童 just turned轉身 two,
29
94000
4000
她就想說:“我的孩子才剛剛兩歲,
01:56
and until直到 the child兒童 turned轉身 two, I had always used
30
98000
4000
時至今日,我一直都在使用
02:00
this complicated複雜, expensive昂貴 cure治愈, you know, this treatment治療.
31
102000
5000
這個複雜昂貴的方法,這種治療方案。
02:05
And then the child兒童 turned轉身 two, and I started開始 using運用
32
107000
1000
而當孩子到了兩歲的時候,我就換成了
02:06
the cheap低廉 and easy簡單 treatment治療, and I wonder奇蹟" --
33
108000
3000
另外一個便宜簡單的療法。我想知道……(如果我沒換的話)”
02:09
and she wondered想知道, like all parents父母 who lose失去 children孩子 wonder奇蹟 --
34
111000
2000
她的想法跟所有那些失去孩子的父母一樣,
02:11
"if there isn't something that I could have doneDONE,
35
113000
2000
“……是否我真的無力回天,
02:13
like keep on using運用 that complicated複雜, expensive昂貴 cure治愈."
36
115000
4000
比如繼續使用那個這種複雜昂貴的方法。”
02:17
And she told all the other people, and she said,
37
119000
3000
她奔走相告,她說,
02:20
"How could it possibly或者 be that something
38
122000
2000
“便宜怎麼能有好貨呢?這個東西
02:22
that's cheap低廉 and simple簡單 works作品 as well as something
39
124000
3000
又便宜又簡單,它的效果怎麼可能
02:25
that's complicated複雜 and expensive昂貴?"
40
127000
2000
跟那種昂貴又複雜的一樣呢?
02:27
And the people thought, "You know, you're right.
41
129000
2000
人們就想了:“沒錯,言之有理。
02:29
It probably大概 is the wrong錯誤 thing to do to switch開關
42
131000
2000
改用那個便宜簡單的治療方法,
02:31
and use the cheap低廉 and simple簡單 solution."
43
133000
3000
沒准就是個錯誤。”
02:34
And the government政府, they heard聽說 her story故事 and the other people,
44
136000
3000
聽聞此事,政府站了出來
02:37
and they said, "Yeah, you're right, we should make a law.
45
139000
3000
說:“是啊。你們說得都對。我們應該制定一條法律。
02:40
We should outlaw取締 this cheap低廉 and simple簡單 treatment治療
46
142000
2000
我們應該剥奪這個便宜簡單治療方案的合法使用權,
02:42
and not let anybody任何人 use this on their children孩子."
47
144000
3000
禁止任何人將其用在他們孩子身上。"
02:45
And the people were happy快樂. They were satisfied滿意.
48
147000
2000
這樣一來,皆大歡喜.
02:47
For many許多 years年份 this went along沿, and everything was fine.
49
149000
3000
許多年過去了,諸事順利。
02:50
But then along沿 came來了 a lowly卑賤 economist經濟學家, who had children孩子 himself他自己,
50
152000
5000
然後有一位行事低調的經濟學家出現了。他自己本身有孩子,
02:55
and he used the expensive昂貴 and complicated複雜 treatment治療.
51
157000
7000
他用的是那個昂貴複雜的方法。
03:02
But he knew知道 about the cheap低廉 and simple簡單 one.
52
164000
2000
但是他同時也了解那個便宜簡單的方法。
03:04
And he thought about it, and the expensive昂貴 one
53
166000
2000
他覺得那個貴的方法
03:06
didn't seem似乎 that great to him. So he thought,
54
168000
3000
對他來說好像不那麼完美。於是他就想:
03:09
"I don't know anything about science科學, but I do know something about data數據,
55
171000
3000
“我對科學一窍不通,但是我對研究數據很在行,
03:12
so maybe I should go and look at the data數據
56
174000
2000
也許我應該搜集一些數據
03:14
and see whether是否 this expensive昂貴 and complicated複雜 treatment治療
57
176000
4000
來研究一下究竟那個昂貴複雜的療法,
03:18
actually其實 works作品 any better than the cheap低廉 and simple簡單 one."
58
180000
3000
是不是真的比那個便宜簡單的好。”
03:21
And lo and behold不料, when he went through通過 the data數據,
59
183000
2000
嘿,真想不到,當他翻閱了所有數據之後
03:23
he found發現 that it didn't look like the expensive昂貴, complicated複雜
60
185000
3000
發現那個昂貴複雜的
03:26
solution was any better than the cheap低廉 one,
61
188000
3000
方法並非真的就比便宜的那個有效。
03:29
at least最小 for the children孩子 who were two and older舊的 --
62
191000
2000
最起碼對於那些兩歲和兩歲以上的孩子來說是這樣的。
03:31
the cheap低廉 one still didn't work on the kids孩子 who were younger更年輕.
63
193000
3000
那個便宜的方法還是不適用於更小的兒童(所以無法比較)。
03:34
And so, he went forth向前 to the people and he said,
64
196000
4000
於是他就跑去告訴人們。他說,
03:38
"I've made製作 this wonderful精彩 finding發現:
65
200000
2000
“我有一個驚人的發現,
03:40
it looks容貌 as if we could just use the cheap低廉 and simple簡單 solution,
66
202000
3000
看起來,如果我們只使用那個便宜簡單的療法,
03:43
and by doing so we could save保存 ourselves我們自己 300 million百萬 dollars美元 a year,
67
205000
3000
每年可以節省三億美元。
03:46
and we could spend that on our children孩子 in other ways方法."
68
208000
2000
我們可以用這筆錢為孩子做其它的事情。”
03:48
And the parents父母 were very unhappy不快樂, and they said,
69
210000
4000
結果家長們很不高興,他們說,
03:52
"This is a terrible可怕 thing, because how can the cheap低廉 and easy簡單 thing
70
214000
2000
“這簡直是危言聳聽。一個便宜簡單的東西怎麼可能
03:54
be as good as the hard thing?" And the government政府 was very upset煩亂.
71
216000
4000
跟一個複雜的東西媲美呢?" 政府知道之後也很不爽,
03:58
And in particular特定, the people who made製作 this expensive昂貴 solution
72
220000
3000
特別是那些利用這個昂貴方法賺錢的人們
04:01
were very upset煩亂 because they thought,
73
223000
2000
就更不爽了。因為他們的想法是:
04:03
"How can we hope希望 to compete競爭 with something that's essentially實質上 free自由?
74
225000
3000
“我們怎麼可能有希望跟那些幾乎免費的東西競爭呢?
04:06
We would lose失去 all of our market市場."
75
228000
2000
我們將會失去全部的市場份額。”
04:08
And people were very angry憤怒, and they called him horrible可怕 names.
76
230000
3000
人們很憤怒,把他罵了一個狗血噴頭。
04:11
And he decided決定 that maybe he should leave離開 the country國家
77
233000
3000
無奈,他決定離開這個國家
04:14
for a few少數 days, and seek尋求 out some more intelligent智能,
78
236000
4000
一段時間,去到一個地方找尋其他更有智慧,
04:18
open-minded思想開明的 people in a place地點 called Oxford牛津,
79
240000
3000
思想更開明的人。這個地方叫做牛津。
04:21
and come and try and tell the story故事 at that place地點.
80
243000
3000
他去到那裏,試圖把這件事情講給人們聽。
04:24
And so, anyway無論如何, here I am. It's not a fairy仙女 tale故事.
81
246000
4000
所以,總而言之。我的意思是,這並非一個童話。
04:28
It's a true真正 story故事 about the United聯合的 States狀態 today今天,
82
250000
2000
這是發生在當今美國的真事。
04:30
and the disease疾病 I'm referring to is actually其實
83
252000
3000
而我所提到的疾病實際上是
04:33
motor發動機 vehicle車輛 accidents事故 for children孩子.
84
255000
3000
車禍,跟兒童相關的車祸。
04:36
And the free自由 cure治愈 is adult成人 seatbelts安全帶, and the expensive昂貴 cure治愈 --
85
258000
6000
這個免費的療法就是成年人使用的安全帶,而那個昂貴的療法,
04:42
the 300-million-dollar-a-year-million美元的一期 cure治愈 -- is child兒童 car汽車 seats.
86
264000
4000
那個三億美元一年的療法,則是兒童汽車座椅。
04:46
And what I'd like to talk to you about today今天
87
268000
2000
今天我想跟你分享的是
04:48
is some of the evidence證據 why I believe this to be true真正:
88
270000
3000
一些證明我觀點正確的事實證據:
04:51
that for children孩子 two years年份 old and up,
89
273000
2000
那就是對於兩歲和兩歲以上的兒童來說,
04:53
there really is no real真實 benefit效益 -- proven證明 benefit效益 -- of car汽車 seats,
90
275000
5000
汽車座椅真的不起作用,我指的是沒有證據可以證明其有用。
04:58
in spite儘管 of the incredible難以置信 energy能源
91
280000
5000
盡管大量的精力
05:03
that has been devoted忠誠 toward expanding擴大 the laws法律
92
285000
3000
都投入到了積極推廣汽車座椅安全的法規中,
05:06
and making製造 it socially社交上 unacceptable不可接受
93
288000
2000
從而使讓儿童只使用安全帶
05:08
to put your children孩子 into seatbelts安全帶. And then talk about why --
94
290000
5000
變成不被社會認可的行為。讓我們談一下為什麼,
05:13
what is it that makes品牌 that true真正?
95
295000
1000
是什麼讓這一觀點變為既成事實?
05:14
And then, finally最後 talk a little bit about a third第三 way,
96
296000
3000
最後,我們要談一下第三種(保護儿童)方法,
05:17
about another另一個 technology技術, which哪一個 is probably大概 better than anything we have,
97
299000
3000
另外一種可能比目前任何方法都先進的科技,
05:20
but which哪一個 -- there hasn't有沒有 been any enthusiasm熱情 for adoption採用
98
302000
3000
但人們還沒有多大兴趣采用,
05:23
precisely恰恰 because people are so enamored迷戀
99
305000
2000
準確地講,因為人們過於傾心於
05:25
with the current當前 car汽車 seat座位 solution. OK.
100
307000
3000
兒童汽車座椅這個方案。好的。
05:28
So, many許多 times when you try to do research研究 on data數據,
101
310000
3000
很多時候,當你試圖進行數據研究的時候,
05:31
it records記錄 complicated複雜 stories故事 -- it's hard to find in the data數據.
102
313000
4000
裏面記錄了一些具有複雜背景的事件。你很難從這些數據中找到你想要的東西,
05:35
It doesn't turn out to be the case案件 when you look at seatbelts安全帶 versus car汽車 seats.
103
317000
3000
或者說其結果並非如你所願,就好象比較安全帶跟兒童汽車座椅哪個更好。
05:38
So the United聯合的 States狀態 keeps保持 a data數據 set
104
320000
2000
美國政府保留了一份數據。
05:40
of every一切 fatal致命 accident事故 that's happened發生 since以來 1975.
105
322000
3000
其中包含了從1975年至今每一個致命死亡事故。
05:43
So in every一切 car汽車 crash緊急 in which哪一個 at least最小 one person dies,
106
325000
3000
每發生一次車禍,就至少有一人死亡。
05:46
they have information信息 on all of the people.
107
328000
2000
他們記錄了所有這些車祸當事人的信息。
05:48
So if you look at that data數據 -- it's right up on the National國民 Highway高速公路
108
330000
3000
所以你可以瀏鑒一下這些數據。這些數據發布在全美高速公路
05:51
Transportation運輸 Safety安全 Administration's管理的 website網站 --
109
333000
2000
交通安全局的網頁上。
05:53
you can just look at the raw生的 data數據,
110
335000
2000
通過這些原始數據,
05:55
and begin開始 to get a sense of the limited有限 amount of evidence證據
111
337000
4000
你可以發現支持兩歲和兩歲以上兒童使用汽車座椅
05:59
that's in favor偏愛 of car汽車 seats for children孩子 aged two and up.
112
341000
3000
的證據非常有限。
06:02
So, here is the data數據. Here I have, among其中 two-二- to six-year-olds六歲的孩子 --
113
344000
4000
這是我手裏的數據。這裏顯示兩歲到六歲,
06:06
anyone任何人 above以上 six, basically基本上 no one uses使用 car汽車 seats,
114
348000
2000
基本來說六歲以上的兒童就不需要使用汽車座椅了。
06:08
so you can't compare比較 -- 29.3 percent百分 of the children孩子 who are unrestrained自在
115
350000
6000
因此,你可以比較一下。 在每次車禍必死一人的情況下,
06:14
in a crash緊急 in which哪一個 at least最小 one person dies, themselves他們自己 die.
116
356000
4000
沒有使用保護措施的孩子的死亡率為29.3%。
06:18
If you put a child兒童 in a car汽車 seat座位, 18.2 percent百分 of the children孩子 die.
117
360000
5000
如果你把孩子放進汽車座椅中,其死亡率是18.2%。
06:23
If they're wearing穿著 a lap-and-shoulder搭接和肩 belt, in this raw生的 data數據,
118
365000
2000
如果他們系了腰及肩的安全帶,根據這個原始數據,
06:25
19.4 percent百分 die. And interestingly有趣, wearing穿著 a lap-only一圈,只 seatbelt安全帶,
119
367000
5000
死亡率是19.4%. 有意思的是,如果只系腰部安全帶,
06:30
16.7 percent百分 die. And actually其實, the theory理論 tells告訴 you
120
372000
2000
死亡機率是16.7%。事實上,原則上來說,
06:32
that the lap-only一圈,只 seatbelt's安全帶 got to be worse更差
121
374000
3000
這種只護腰部的安全帶的效果比
06:35
than the lap-and-shoulder搭接和肩 belt. And that just reminds提醒 you
122
377000
1000
腰及肩的安全更糟。而且我還要提醒你的是,
06:36
that when you deal合同 with raw生的 data數據, there are hundreds數以百計
123
378000
2000
當你在研究原始數據時,這裏有成百上千
06:38
of confounding混雜 variables變量 that may可能 be getting得到 in the way.
124
380000
3000
的變量因素混淆其中,從而影響到最終結果。
06:41
So what we do in the study研究 is -- and this is just presenting呈現
125
383000
5000
所以我們換一種方式來看待這個問題,這裏使用的是
06:46
the same相同 information信息, but turned轉身 into a figure數字 to make it easier更輕鬆.
126
388000
3000
相同的數據,但變成了圖表後看起來簡單明了。
06:49
So the yellow黃色 bar酒吧 represents代表 car汽車 seats,
127
391000
3000
黃色條塊代表了汽車座椅(兒童的死亡率),
06:52
the orange橙子 bar酒吧 lap-and-shoulder搭接和肩, and the red bar酒吧 lap-only一圈,只 seatbelts安全帶.
128
394000
4000
桔色條塊代表了腰及肩的安全帶(兒童的死亡率),而紅色條塊則代表了僅護腰的安全帶(兒童的死亡率)。
06:56
And this is all relative相對的 to unrestrained自在 --
129
398000
2000
這些條塊已經跟無保護措施(兒童的死亡率)的情況作過比較了。
06:58
the bigger the bar酒吧, the better. Okay.
130
400000
1000
色塊越大越好。好的。
06:59
So, this is the data數據 I just showed顯示, OK?
131
401000
2000
左邊是我剛剛展示過的數據,對吧?
07:01
So the highest最高 bar酒吧 is what you're striving努力 to beat擊敗.
132
403000
3000
最高的那個色塊就是人們死活不願意認同的。
07:04
So you can control控制 for the basic基本 things, like how hard the crash緊急 was,
133
406000
4000
你可以考慮到該研究中最基本的因素,比如車禍的嚴重性有多大,
07:08
what seat座位 the child兒童 was sitting坐在 in, etc等等., the age年齡 of the child兒童.
134
410000
4000
孩子坐在哪個位置上,等等 。還有孩子的年齡。
07:12
And that's that middle中間 set of bars酒吧.
135
414000
2000
那結論就是中間那一組色塊。
07:14
And so, you can see that the lap-only一圈,只 seatbelts安全帶
136
416000
3000
你可以發現僅護腰的安全帶,
07:17
start開始 to look worse更差 once一旦 you do that.
137
419000
2000
開始看起來不安全了。
07:19
And then finally最後, the last set of bars酒吧,
138
421000
2000
最終,最右邊這組色塊,
07:21
which哪一個 are really controlling控制 for everything
139
423000
3000
是在考慮到所有可能性之後而得出的結論。
07:24
you could possibly或者 imagine想像 about the crash緊急,
140
426000
2000
你可以想像任何一種車禍。
07:26
50, 75, 100 different不同 characteristics特點 of the crash緊急.
141
428000
3000
五十種,七十五種,一百種不同性質的車祸。
07:29
And what you find is that the car汽車 seats and the lap-and-shoulder搭接和肩 belts皮帶,
142
431000
3000
你會發現,使用汽車座椅和腰及肩安全帶,
07:32
when it comes to saving保存 lives生活, fatalities死亡 look exactly究竟 identical相同.
143
434000
4000
在救命方面而言,其死亡率看起來毫無二致。
07:36
And the standard標準 error錯誤 bands are relatively相對 small around these estimates估計 as well.
144
438000
4000
而且有關這些估算值的標準誤差範圍相對也比較小。
07:40
And it's not just overall總體. It's very robust強大的
145
442000
3000
這不僅是泛泛而談,這個結論適用於
07:43
to anything you want to look at.
146
445000
2000
任何一種車禍。
07:45
One thing that's interesting有趣: if you look at frontal-impact正面衝擊 crashes崩潰 --
147
447000
3000
有一件事很有趣:如果你看一下正面衝撞的車祸,
07:48
when the car汽車 crashes崩潰, the front面前 hits點擊 into something --
148
450000
3000
車禍發生時,車頭撞向某一處,
07:51
indeed確實, what you see is that the car汽車 seats look a little bit better.
149
453000
4000
汽車座椅看起來確實更好一點兒。
07:55
And I think this isn't just chance機會.
150
457000
2000
但我認為這其中必有原由。
07:57
In order訂購 to have the car汽車 seat座位 approved批准,
151
459000
1000
如果汽車座椅的生產想要通過許可,
07:58
you need to pass通過 certain某些 federal聯邦 standards標準,
152
460000
3000
就必須達到一定的聯邦標準,
08:01
all of which哪一個 involve涉及 slamming猛擊 your car汽車 into a direct直接 frontal前面的 crash緊急.
153
463000
5000
而這些都假設你的車頭發生正面衝撞。
08:06
But when you look at other types類型 of crashes崩潰, like rear-impact後部撞擊 crashes崩潰,
154
468000
2000
但是當你看看其它類型的車禍,比如追尾,
08:08
indeed確實, the car汽車 seats don't perform演出 as well.
155
470000
3000
汽車座椅其實根本不起作用。
08:11
And I think that's because they've他們已經 been optimized優化 to pass通過,
156
473000
2000
我想這是因為他們都是針對車頭正面沖撞來設計的。
08:13
as we always expect期望 people to do,
157
475000
2000
就象大家經常會做的,
08:15
to optimize優化 relative相對的 to bright-line明線 rules規則
158
477000
2000
上有政策,下有對策,
08:17
about how affected受影響 the car汽車 will be.
159
479000
4000
在汽車安全這一問題上也是一樣。
08:21
And the other thing you might威力 argue爭論 is,
160
483000
1000
你可能會提出另外一個觀點,
08:22
"Well, car汽車 seats have got a lot better over time.
161
484000
2000
汽車座椅的安全性能變得越來越好。
08:24
And so if we look at recent最近 crashes崩潰 --
162
486000
3000
如果我們看看最近發生的車禍
08:27
the whole整個 data數據 set is almost幾乎 30 years'年份' worth價值 of data數據 --
163
489000
2000
這裏包含了幾乎過去30年的全部數據,
08:29
you won't慣於 see it in the recent最近 crashes崩潰. The new car汽車 seats are far, far better."
164
491000
2000
但你看不到有關汽車座椅的事故。新型汽車座椅的設計遠遠好於以前舊的。
08:31
But indeed確實, in recent最近 crashes崩潰 the lap-and-shoulder搭接和肩 seatbelts安全帶,
165
493000
4000
但實際上,在最新的車禍數據中,腿及肩安全帶
08:35
actually其實, are doing even better than the car汽車 seats.
166
497000
3000
的表現甚至比汽車座椅還要好。
08:38
They say, "Well, that's impossible不可能, that can't be."
167
500000
3000
人們會說,“哦,這不可能,完全不合邏輯。“
08:41
And the line of argument論據, if you ask parents父母, is,
168
503000
2000
如果你問一下這些父母,他們爭論的重點集中在
08:43
"But car汽車 seats are so expensive昂貴 and complicated複雜,
169
505000
3000
“汽車座椅那麼貴那麼複雜,
08:46
and they have this big tangle糾紛 of latches鎖存器,
170
508000
3000
還有一大堆這樣那樣的鎖扣,
08:49
how could they possibly或者 not work better than seatbelts安全帶
171
511000
3000
它們怎麼可能沒有安全帶好呢?
08:52
because they are so expensive昂貴 and complicated複雜?"
172
514000
2000
因為它們又貴又複雜!”
08:54
It's kind of an interesting有趣 logic邏輯,
173
516000
3000
這是一個很有趣的邏輯,
08:57
I think, that people use. And the other logic邏輯, they say,
174
519000
3000
我覺得,他們把它用在這裏。至於其它的邏輯,他們說,
09:00
"Well, the government政府 wouldn't不會 have told us [to] use them
175
522000
2000
“哦,如果安全帶更好的話,
09:02
if they weren't much better."
176
524000
2000
政府不會毫無理由地不讓我們用。”
09:04
But what's interesting有趣 is the government政府 telling告訴 us to use them
177
526000
2000
但有意思的是,政府鼓勵我們去使用
09:06
is not actually其實 based基於 on very much.
178
528000
2000
並不能成為真正的理論基礎。
09:08
It really is based基於 on some impassioned激切 pleas認罪 of parents父母
179
530000
3000
這是基於某些父母的強烈請求,
09:11
whose誰的 children孩子 died死亡 after they turned轉身 two,
180
533000
3000
而這些父母的孩子在剛兩歲的時候就死於車禍,
09:14
which哪一個 has led to the passage通道 of all these laws法律 -- not very much on data數據.
181
536000
4000
這才使得法規得以通過,而並非是以事實數據為基准而得到的結論。
09:18
So you can only get so far, I think, in telling告訴 your story故事
182
540000
4000
到目前為止,我只能用這些抽象的統計數據
09:22
by using運用 these abstract抽象 statistics統計.
183
544000
2000
讓你了解這麼多。
09:24
And so I had some friends朋友 over to dinner晚餐, and I was asking --
184
546000
5000
當我請朋友們來家裏吃飯時,我問他們,
09:29
we had a cookout野炊 -- I was asking them what advice忠告 they might威力 have for me
185
551000
3000
我們當時在露天燒烤,我想聽聽他們的建議,我要如何做才能
09:32
about proving證明 my point. They said, "Why don't you run some crash緊急 tests測試?"
186
554000
4000
進一步證明我的觀點。他們說:“為什麼你不做一些撞車試驗?”
09:36
And I said, "That's a great idea理念."
187
558000
2000
我說:“這是個很好的主意。”
09:38
So we actually其實 tried試著 to commission佣金 some crash緊急 tests測試.
188
560000
2000
於是,我們試圖委託其它機構幫我們進行測試,
09:40
And it turns out that as we called around to the independent獨立
189
562000
5000
結果是,我們給全國的獨立
09:45
crash緊急 test測試 companies公司 around the country國家,
190
567000
3000
撞車測試機構打了一圈電話,
09:48
none沒有 of them wanted to do our crash緊急 test測試
191
570000
2000
沒有人願意接手。
09:50
because they said, some explicitly明確地, some not so explicitly明確地,
192
572000
4000
因為他們說, 有的直言不諱,有的拐彎磨角,
09:54
"All of our business商業 comes from car汽車 seat座位 manufacturers製造商.
193
576000
2000
“我們的生意都來源於汽車座椅生產廠家。
09:56
We can't risk風險 alienating異化 them by testing測試 seatbelts安全帶 relative相對的 to car汽車 seats."
194
578000
4000
我們無法冒著得罪他們的風險,來做安全帶跟汽車座椅的比較測試。”
10:00
Now, eventually終於, one did. Under the conditions條件 of anonymity匿名,
195
582000
4000
後來終於有一家公司答應了。他們說,在透露他們身份的條件下,
10:04
they said they would be happy快樂 to do this test測試 for us --
196
586000
3000
他們很高興幫我們這個忙。
10:07
so anonymity匿名, and 1,500 dollars美元 per seat座位 that we crashed墜毀.
197
589000
5000
於是以匿名為前提,每撞毀一個座椅我們支付他們1,500美元。
10:12
And so, we went to Buffalo水牛, New York紐約,
198
594000
2000
我們前往紐約水牛城(去做這個測試)。
10:14
and here is the precursor先導 to it.
199
596000
2000
這是測試之前的情況。
10:16
These are the crash緊急 test測試 dummies假人,
200
598000
2000
這是用於測試的人體模型,
10:18
waiting等候 for their chance機會 to take the center中央 stage階段.
201
600000
3000
正在等著機會登場。
10:21
And then, here's這裡的 how the crash緊急 test測試 works作品.
202
603000
2000
這裏你可以看到我們是如果進行撞車測試的。
10:23
Here, they don't actually其實 crash緊急 the entire整個 car汽車, you know --
203
605000
3000
這裏,他們並非把整輛車撞毀,你知道,
10:26
it's not worth價值 ruining破壞 a whole整個 car汽車 to do it.
204
608000
3000
為了做測試而毀掉一整輛車是不劃算的。
10:29
So they just have these bench長凳 seats,
205
611000
1000
所以,你必須用這些長條座椅,
10:30
and they strap背帶 the car汽車 seat座位 and the seatbelt安全帶 onto it.
206
612000
2000
然後把汽車座椅和安全帶安裝在上面。
10:32
So I just wanted you to look at this.
207
614000
2000
我想讓你看一下這個景象。
10:34
And I think this gives you a good idea理念 of why parents父母 think
208
616000
2000
我想這能給你一個理由為什麼父母們認為
10:36
car汽車 seats are so great. Look at the kid孩子 in the car汽車 seat座位.
209
618000
2000
汽車座椅如此之好。看看汽車座椅裏的孩子。
10:38
Does he not look content內容, ready準備 to go,
210
620000
3000
他看上去不是很舒服,時刻準備出發,
10:41
like he could survive生存 anything? And then, if you look at the kid孩子 in back,
211
623000
2000
好象不管什麼事故發生他都會安然無恙嗎?但如果你看一下坐在後座的那個孩子,
10:43
it looks容貌 like he's already已經 choking窒息的 before the crash緊急 even happens發生.
212
625000
3000
好象車禍還沒發生,他就已經快要窒息了。
10:46
It's hard to believe, when you look at this, that
213
628000
3000
看到這裏,你很難相信
10:49
that kid孩子 in back is going to do very well when you get in a crash緊急.
214
631000
2000
一旦車禍發生,坐在後面的那個孩子能夠完好無損。
10:51
So this is going to be a crash緊急
215
633000
2000
碰撞實驗開始時,
10:53
where they're going to slam猛撞 this thing forward前鋒 into a wall
216
635000
3000
他們會把這個裝置使勁地摔到前面的墙上,
10:56
at 30 miles英里 an hour小時, and see what happens發生. OK?
217
638000
3000
速度是每小時30英哩。讓我們看看會發生什麼。好嗎?
10:59
So, let me show顯示 you what happens發生.
218
641000
2000
請允許我展示給你。
11:01
These are three-year-old三十歲 dummies假人, by the way.
219
643000
3000
對了,這些是模仿3歲兒童的人體模型。
11:04
So here -- this is the car汽車 seat座位. Now watch two things:
220
646000
2000
這裏是汽車座椅(和坐在裏面的孩子)。現在請注意兩件事情。
11:06
watch how the head goes forward前鋒,
221
648000
2000
注意模型的頭向前猛沖,
11:08
and basically基本上 hits點擊 the knees膝蓋 -- and this is in the car汽車 seat座位 --
222
650000
2000
基本上撞到自己的膝蓋,這是坐在汽車座椅裏的孩子的情況。
11:10
and watch how the car汽車 seat座位 flies蒼蠅 around, in the rebound籃板球, up in the air空氣.
223
652000
5000
再者,注意觀察汽車座椅空中反彈後,
11:15
The car汽車 seat's座椅的 moving移動 all over the place地點.
224
657000
2000
飛來飛去。
11:17
Bear in mind心神 there are two things about this.
225
659000
2000
請記住,這裏面有兩個因素。
11:19
This is a car汽車 seat座位 that was installed安裝 by someone有人
226
661000
3000
安裝這個汽車座椅的人
11:22
who has installed安裝 1,000 car汽車 seats, who knew知道 exactly究竟 how to do it.
227
664000
3000
之前已經安裝過上千個了,他準確地知道如何去做。
11:25
And also it turned轉身 out these bench長凳 seats
228
667000
1000
而且,結果顯示,這些長條座椅
11:26
are the very best最好 way to install安裝 car汽車 seats.
229
668000
3000
是最適合安裝汽車座椅的。
11:29
Having a flat平面 back makes品牌 it much easier更輕鬆 to install安裝 them.
230
671000
3000
這個椅子的靠背是平的,所以安裝起來簡單很多。
11:32
And so this is a test測試 that's very much rigged非法操縱的 in favor偏愛 of the car汽車 seat座位,
231
674000
3000
這是一個對汽車座椅很有利的測試裝置。
11:35
OK? So, that kid孩子 in this crash緊急 fared表現 very well.
232
677000
3000
是吧?那個(坐在汽車座椅中的)孩子在這次沖撞中的境遇不錯。
11:38
The federal聯邦 standards標準 are
233
680000
2000
按照聯邦標準
11:40
that you have to score得分了 below下面 a 1,000
234
682000
2000
你危險系數必須少於1,000
11:42
to be an approved批准 car汽車 seat座位 on this crash緊急,
235
684000
2000
才能通過這類撞車測驗,
11:44
in some metric of units單位 which哪一個 are not important重要.
236
686000
4000
這裏就不細說危險系數怎麼計算的了。
11:48
And this crash緊急 would have been about a 450.
237
690000
3000
這個汽車座椅的危險系數應該在450左右。
11:51
So this car汽車 seat座位 was actually其實 an above-average高於平均水平 car汽車 seat座位
238
693000
2000
所以,這實際上是一個高於平均水平的汽車座椅。
11:53
from Consumer消費者 Reports報告, and did quite相當 well.
239
695000
2000
在消費者評價中,該座椅的性能很好。
11:55
So the next下一個 one. Now, this is the kid孩子, same相同 crash緊急,
240
697000
3000
下一個,是這個孩子,相同的測試
11:58
who is in the seatbelt安全帶. He hardly幾乎不 moves移動 at all, actually其實,
241
700000
5000
不同的是他使用的是安全帶。實事上,他基本上連動都沒有動,
12:03
relative相對的 to the other child兒童. The funny滑稽 thing is,
242
705000
3000
跟剛才那個坐在汽車座椅裏的孩子比起來。有趣的是,
12:06
the cam凸輪 work is terrible可怕 because they've他們已經 only set it up
243
708000
3000
這個錄像很糟糕,因為它們只是被用來
12:09
to do the car汽車 seats, and so, they actually其實 don't even have a way
244
711000
2000
做汽車座椅測試的,所以你沒辦法把攝像機
12:11
to move移動 the camera相機 so you can see the kid孩子 that's on the rebound籃板球.
245
713000
2000
移到後面,以便看到那個孩子的反彈情況
12:13
Anyway無論如何, it turns out that those two crashes崩潰, that actually其實
246
715000
4000
總而言之,是在這兩次測試中,那個
12:17
the three-year-old三十歲 did slightly worse更差. So, he gets得到 about a 500
247
719000
4000
三歲孩子的模型的情況稍差一點兒。所以,他的危險系數得分是500,
12:21
out of -- you know, on this range範圍 -- relative相對的 to a 400 and something.
248
723000
4000
在這個400到1000的範圍內。
12:25
But still, if you just took that data數據 from that crash緊急
249
727000
3000
但是,如果你只是把通過撞車測試採集到的這一數據(危險系數500)
12:28
to the federal聯邦 government政府, and said, "I have invented發明 a new car汽車 seat座位.
250
730000
3000
拿給聯邦政府,然後說:“我發明了一個新的汽車座椅,
12:31
I would like you to approve批准 it for selling銷售,"
251
733000
3000
我希望你能批准我銷售它。”
12:34
then they would say, "This is a fantastic奇妙 new car汽車 seat座位, it works作品 great.
252
736000
3000
然後,他們就會說:“這是一個非常出色的新汽車座椅,性能很棒。”
12:37
It only got a 500, it could have gotten得到 as high up as a 1,000."
253
739000
2000
它的危險系數只有500,只要不超過1000就行。
12:39
And this seatbelt安全帶 would have passed通過 with flying飛行 colors顏色
254
741000
3000
那麼這個安全帶毫無疑問也能通過測試
12:42
into being存在 approved批准 as a car汽車 seat座位.
255
744000
2000
並獲得跟汽車座椅一樣的生產許可。
12:44
So, in some sense, what this is suggesting提示
256
746000
2000
所以在某種程度上來說,這表明了
12:46
is that it's not just that people are setting設置 up their car汽車 seats wrong錯誤,
257
748000
3000
人們不僅錯誤地安裝了汽車座椅,
12:49
which哪一個 is putting children孩子 at risk風險. It's just that, fundamentally從根本上,
258
751000
2000
讓孩子們的生命受到威脅。而是從根本上來說,
12:51
the car汽車 seats aren't doing much.
259
753000
2000
汽車座椅的作用並不大。
12:53
So here's這裡的 the crash緊急. So these are timed時控 at the same相同 time,
260
755000
2000
這是另外一個撞車測試,他們在同一時間同步進行。
12:55
so you can see that it takes much longer with the car汽車 seat座位 --
261
757000
2000
你可以看到,汽車座椅恢復原位所用的時間更長,
12:57
at rebound籃板球, it takes a lot longer --
262
759000
2000
特別是反彈之後,所有的時間更長。
12:59
but there's just a lot less movement運動 for child兒童 who's誰是 in the seatbelt安全帶.
263
761000
4000
但是,系安全帶的那個孩子移動的幅度小得多。
13:03
So, I'll show顯示 you the six-year-old六十歲 crashes崩潰 as well.
264
765000
2000
接下來,我要給你看看針對六歲大孩子的撞車測試。
13:05
The six-year-old六十歲 is in a car汽車 seat座位, and it turns out
265
767000
5000
使用汽車座椅的六歲孩子,其結果
13:10
that looks容貌 terrible可怕, but that's great. That's like a 400, OK?
266
772000
5000
看上去很恐怖,但其實不錯。這個的危險系數得分大約是400,對吧?
13:15
So that kid孩子 would do fine in the crash緊急.
267
777000
1000
所以這個孩子在車禍發生時可以安然無恙。
13:16
Nothing about that would have been problematic問題 to the child兒童 at all.
268
778000
4000
不會有任何事情發生在他身上。
13:20
And then here's這裡的 the six-year-old六十歲 in the seatbelt安全帶,
269
782000
3000
這是一個系安全帶的六歲孩子,
13:23
and in fact事實, they get exactly究竟 within, you know,
270
785000
2000
事實上,這兩個測驗的得分幾乎一樣,
13:25
within one or two points of the same相同. So really, for the six-year-old六十歲,
271
787000
4000
只有一兩分的差別。說真的,對於六歲的孩子來說,
13:29
the car汽車 seat座位 did absolutely絕對 nothing whatsoever任何.
272
791000
4000
汽車座椅完全沒有一點兒作用。
13:33
That's some more evidence證據, so in some sense --
273
795000
3000
這裏有更多的數據,在某種程度上,
13:36
I was criticized批評 by a scientist科學家, who said, "You could never publish發布
274
798000
4000
我被一位科學家批评說:“就憑著四個例子,你永遠都不可能發表
13:40
a study研究 with an n of 4," meaning含義 those four crashes崩潰.
275
802000
2000
任何一個研究結果。” 意思是說我只做了四次撞車測試。
13:42
So I wrote him back and I said, "What about an n of 45,004?"
276
804000
4000
我就回信對他說:“如果我有四萬五千零四個例子呢?”
13:46
Because I had the other 45,000 other real-world真實世界 crashes崩潰.
277
808000
2000
因為,我手裏有四萬五千零四例的真實車禍。
13:48
And I just think that it's interesting有趣 that the idea理念
278
810000
4000
我就想,這個用實際車禍做為依據
13:52
of using運用 real-world真實世界 crashes崩潰, which哪一個 is very much something
279
814000
2000
的主意很有意思。這是那種
13:54
that economists經濟學家 think would be the right thing to do,
280
816000
2000
經濟學家們認為理所當然的事情,
13:56
is something that scientists科學家們 don't actually其實, usually平時 think --
281
818000
2000
而科學家們卻不會,通常他們認為,
13:58
they would rather use a laboratory實驗室,
282
820000
3000
他們更願意用實驗來說話,
14:01
a very imperfect不完善 science科學 of looking at the dummies假人,
283
823000
2000
就象一個用人體模型來做研究的漏洞百出科學實驗,
14:03
than actually其實 30 years年份 of data數據 of what we've我們已經 seen看到
284
825000
4000
而不願意使用我們這三十年來所看到
14:07
with children孩子 and with car汽車 seats.
285
829000
3000
跟兒童和汽車座椅相關的真實數據
14:10
And so I think the answer回答 to this puzzle難題
286
832000
4000
所以,我認為,解開迷底的答案
14:14
is that there's a much better solution out there,
287
836000
3000
就是還有另外一個更好方法,
14:17
that's gotten得到 nobody沒有人 excited興奮 because everyone大家
288
839000
3000
只不過沒人動心。因為每個人都
14:20
is so delighted欣喜的 with the way car汽車 seats are presumably想必 working加工.
289
842000
4000
對汽車座椅所謂的性能感到很滿意。
14:24
And if you think from a design設計 perspective透視,
290
846000
3000
如果你從設計的角度出發,
14:27
about going back to square廣場 one, and say,
291
849000
2000
回到當初一片空白的階段,然後說:
14:29
"I just want to protect保護 kids孩子 in the back seat座位."
292
851000
2000
“我只想保護坐在後座的孩子們。”
14:31
I don't there's anyone任何人 in this room房間 who'd誰願意 say,
293
853000
2000
我不認為這個房間裏諸位會說:
14:33
"Well, the right way to start開始 would be,
294
855000
1000
“我們應該做的是
14:34
let's make a great seat座位 belt for adults成年人.
295
856000
3000
讓我們給成年人設計一個非常棒的安全帶。
14:37
And then, let's make this really big contraption玩意兒
296
859000
2000
然後,我們把這些鏈子拼湊在一起
14:39
that you have to rig操縱 up to it in this daisy雛菊 chain."
297
861000
3000
做成一個奇形怪狀的東西。”
14:42
I mean, why not start開始 -- who's誰是 sitting坐在 in the back seat座位 anyway無論如何 except for kids孩子?
298
864000
3000
我的意思是說,為什麼不從這個角度考慮。如果保護那些坐在後座上的人們,除了孩子之外。
14:45
But essentially實質上, do something like this,
299
867000
3000
基本上,做成這樣的東西,
14:48
which哪一個 I don't know exactly究竟 how much it would cost成本 to do,
300
870000
2000
我不知道這要花費多大的成本,
14:50
but there's no reason原因 I could see
301
872000
1000
但沒理由
14:51
why this should be much more expensive昂貴 than a regular定期 car汽車 seat座位.
302
873000
2000
這會比普通的汽車座椅要貴。
14:53
It's just actually其實 -- you see, this is folding摺頁 up -- it's behind背後 the seat座位.
303
875000
4000
實際上,你看,這可以折疊起來,翻到座位後面。
14:57
You've got a regular定期 seat座位 for adults成年人, and then you fold it down,
304
879000
2000
平時這就是一個正常的成人用的座位,然後把它折下來,
14:59
and the kid孩子 sits坐鎮 on top最佳, and it's integrated集成.
305
881000
2000
孩子們就可以坐在上面。這個裝置跟車集成在一起。
15:01
It seems似乎 to me that this can't be a very expensive昂貴 solution,
306
883000
4000
對我來說,這似乎不可能是很貴的方案,
15:05
and it's got to work better than what we already已經 have.
307
887000
3000
而且這肯定比我們現有要好得多。
15:08
So the question is, is there any hope希望 for adoption採用 of something like this,
308
890000
5000
問題是,這樣的東西有沒有希望被接受,
15:13
which哪一個 would presumably想必 save保存 a lot of lives生活?
309
895000
2000
如果我們假設它可以挽救很多的生命?
15:15
And I think the answer回答, perhaps也許, lies in a story故事.
310
897000
4000
我認為答案,有可能在以下的故事中找到。
15:19
The answer回答 both to why has a car汽車 seat座位 been so successful成功,
311
901000
4000
這解釋了為什麼汽車座椅如此成功,
15:23
and why this may可能 someday日後 be adopted採用 or not,
312
905000
3000
以及為什麼我的發明有一天可能會被接受,也可能不會。
15:26
lies in a story故事 that my dad told me, relating有關 to when he was a doctor醫生
313
908000
4000
答案就在以下我爸爸講給我的一個故事裏。他曾經是英國空軍駐軍
15:30
in the U.S. Air空氣 Force in England英國. And this is a long time ago:
314
912000
3000
的醫生。而且這是很久以前的事兒了。
15:33
you were allowed允許 to do things then you can't do today今天.
315
915000
2000
那時,你可以有自主權做一些今天不能做的事情。
15:35
So, my father父親 would have patients耐心 come in
316
917000
4000
那會兒,會有病人來找我父親看病,
15:39
who he thought were not really sick生病.
317
921000
3000
但我爸發現他們並沒有病。
15:42
And he had a big jar full充分 of placebo安慰劑 pills that he would give them,
318
924000
4000
他就給病人開滿滿一大罐沒有藥效,純屬安慰性質的藥片,
15:46
and he'd他會 say, "Come back in a week, if you still feel lousy糟糕."
319
928000
3000
然後說:“如果一星期之內你仍然感覺不好,就回來複診。”
15:49
OK, and most of them would not come back,
320
931000
1000
好了,很多人不會回來,
15:50
but some of them would come back.
321
932000
2000
也有人會回來複診。
15:52
And when they came來了 back, he, still convinced相信 they were not sick生病,
322
934000
4000
但當他們回來的時候,他還是確信他們沒病,
15:56
had another另一個 jar of pills. In this jar were huge巨大 horse pills.
323
938000
5000
再給他們一大罐藥片。這一罐裏裝的是那種特大的藥片。
16:01
They were almost幾乎 impossible不可能 to swallow.
324
943000
2000
這幾乎沒有可能吞下去。
16:03
And these, to me, are the analogy比喻 for the car汽車 seats.
325
945000
4000
而這些,對於我來說,就形同汽車座椅。
16:07
People would look at these and say, "Man, this thing is so big
326
949000
4000
人們看著這些藥片會說:“天哪,這個東西這麼大,
16:11
and so hard to swallow. If this doesn't make me feel better,
327
953000
2000
這麼難以下咽。如果這都無法治好我,
16:13
you know, what possibly或者 could?"
328
955000
3000
你說,還有什麼可以?”
16:16
And it turned轉身 out that most people wouldn't不會 come back,
329
958000
2000
結果是,大多數的病人都不會回來
16:18
because it worked工作. But every一切 once一旦 in a while,
330
960000
3000
如果藥起了作用。但偶爾,
16:21
there was still a patient患者 convinced相信 that he was sick生病,
331
963000
5000
有這麼一兩個病人確信自己病得很厲害,
16:26
and he'd他會 come back. And my dad had a third第三 jar of pills.
332
968000
3000
他還會第三次回來。而我爸爸就會拿出第三罐藥片。
16:29
And the jar of pills he had, he said,
333
971000
2000
他說,他手裏這罐藥片,
16:31
were the tiniest最小的 little pills he could find,
334
973000
3000
是那種他可以找到的最微型的,
16:34
so small you could barely僅僅 see them.
335
976000
2000
小到幾乎看不見。
16:36
And he would say, listen, I know I gave you that huge巨大 pill,
336
978000
2000
他說,聽著,我知道以前我給你開過那種大型藥片,
16:38
that complicated複雜, hard-to-swallow難以吞嚥 pill before,
337
980000
4000
那種複雜,又不容易下咽的藥片。
16:42
but now I've got one that's so potent有力的,
338
984000
2000
現在,我有一種非常有效的藥,
16:44
that is really tiny and small and almost幾乎 invisible無形.
339
986000
2000
但它很小,幾乎看不到。
16:46
It's almost幾乎 like this thing here, which哪一個 you can't even see."
340
988000
3000
就象這個東西一樣,你甚至無法看到。”
16:49
And it turned轉身 out that never,
341
991000
2000
結果,再也沒有,
16:51
in all the times my dad gave out this pill, the really tiny pill,
342
993000
3000
在我爸把這些很小很小的藥片給出去之後,
16:54
did anyone任何人 ever come back still complaining抱怨的 of sickness疾病.
343
996000
3000
再也沒有人回來抱怨自己病得很厲害了。
16:57
So, my dad always took that as evidence證據
344
999000
3000
我爸經常拿這個說事兒,
17:00
that this little, teeny蠅頭, powerful強大 pill
345
1002000
4000
說這些小得不能再小的強力藥片,
17:04
had the ultimate最終 placebo安慰劑 effect影響. And in some sense, if that's the right story故事,
346
1006000
4000
反而起到的心理慰籍的作用最大。在某種程度上來說,如果這個故事真的說明問題 ,
17:08
I think integrated集成 car汽車 seats you will see, very quickly很快,
347
1010000
2000
我認為,你很快會看到,這個組合式的汽車座椅
17:10
becoming變得 something that everyone大家 has. The other possible可能 conclusion結論
348
1012000
4000
將會成為每個人的必備。另外一個可能的結論
17:14
is, well, maybe after coming未來 to my father父親 three times,
349
1016000
3000
是,嗯,可能在回來找我父親看過三次病之後,
17:17
getting得到 sent發送 home with placebos安慰劑, he still felt sick生病,
350
1019000
2000
拿著安慰藥片回到家裏,他還是覺得不舒服,
17:19
he went and found發現 another另一個 doctor醫生.
351
1021000
2000
他會去看另外一個醫生。
17:21
And that's completely全然 possible可能. And if that's the case案件,
352
1023000
2000
這是完全有可能的。而且,如果真是這樣的話,
17:23
then I think we're stuck卡住 with conventional常規 car汽車 seats for a long time to come.
353
1025000
3000
我認為,在接下來很長一段時間裏,我只好繼續使用傳統的汽車座椅。
17:26
Thank you very much.
354
1028000
1000
非常感謝。
17:27
(Applause掌聲)
355
1029000
4000
(掌聲)
17:31
(Audience聽眾: I just wanted to ask you, when we wear穿 seatbelts安全帶
356
1033000
2000
(觀眾:我只是想問你,當我們系上安全帶的時候,
17:33
we don't necessarily一定 wear穿 them just to prevent避免 loss失利 of life,
357
1035000
3000
我們並非只是用它防止車禍死亡的發生,
17:36
it's also to prevent避免 lots of serious嚴重 injury.
358
1038000
2000
它也是用來防止車禍造成的受傷。
17:38
Your data數據 looks容貌 at fatalities死亡. It doesn't look at serious嚴重 injury.
359
1040000
4000
你的數據只是針對死亡率,並不包括嚴重受傷的情況。
17:42
Is there any data數據 to show顯示 that child兒童 seats
360
1044000
2000
有沒有數據可以顯示汽車座椅在防止受傷方面的,
17:44
are actually其實 less effective有效, or just as effective有效 as seatbelts安全帶
361
1046000
3000
效果並不明顯,或著沒有安全帶那麼明顯?
17:47
for serious嚴重 injury? Because that would prove證明 your case案件.)
362
1049000
2000
因為這才能證明你的論點。
17:49
Steven史蒂芬 Levitt萊維特: Yeah, that's a great question. In my data數據, and in another另一個 data數據 set
363
1051000
3000
是的,這個問題提得很好。在我的數據當中,包括另外一組
17:52
I've looked看著 at for New Jersey新澤西 crashes崩潰,
364
1054000
3000
針對新澤西撞車試驗所研究的數據,
17:55
I find very small differences分歧 in injury.
365
1057000
4000
我發現兩種措施在減少受傷方面的差異很小。
17:59
So in this data數據, it's statistically統計學 insignificant微不足道 differences分歧
366
1061000
2000
在這個數據中,統計學上的差異微乎其微,
18:01
in injury between之間 car汽車 seats and lap-and-shoulder搭接和肩 belts皮帶.
367
1063000
4000
我是指在受傷方面,汽車座椅跟腰及肩安全帶相比較來說。
18:05
In the New Jersey新澤西 data數據, which哪一個 is different不同,
368
1067000
1000
在新澤西的數據中,情況卻有所不同。
18:06
because it's not just fatal致命 crashes崩潰,
369
1068000
3000
因為這不僅只是致命性的車禍,
18:09
but all crashes崩潰 in New Jersey新澤西 that are reported報導,
370
1071000
2000
而是所有在新澤西進行的撞車測試報告。
18:11
it turns out that there is a 10 percent百分 difference區別 in injuries受傷,
371
1073000
3000
結果是,在防止受傷方面的差異是百分之十,
18:14
but generally通常 they're the minor次要 injuries受傷.
372
1076000
2000
總的來說,車禍造成的都是很輕微的損傷。
18:16
Now, what's interesting有趣, I should say this as a disclaimer放棄,
373
1078000
2000
有意思的是,我應該說,盡管不認同,
18:18
there is medical literature文學 that is very difficult to resolve解決 with this other data數據,
374
1080000
5000
有篇醫學文獻用新澤西的數據很難解釋。
18:23
which哪一個 suggests提示 that car汽車 seats are dramatically顯著 better.
375
1085000
4000
這篇文獻顯示,汽車座椅的安全性顯著地好於其它。
18:27
And they use a completely全然 different不同 methodology方法 that involves涉及 --
376
1089000
2000
他們用了一個完全不同的方法論,這包括
18:29
after the crash緊急 occurs發生, they get from the insurance保險 companies公司
377
1091000
3000
在撞車發生之後,他們從保險公司手裏拿到
18:32
the names of the people who were in the crash緊急,
378
1094000
2000
車祸受害者的姓名,
18:34
and they call them on the phone電話,
379
1096000
1000
然後打電話給他們,
18:35
and they asked them what happened發生.
380
1097000
1000
詢問他們事情的經過。
18:36
And I really can't resolve解決, yet然而,
381
1098000
3000
我目前還解釋不了
18:39
and I'd like to work with these medical researchers研究人員
382
1101000
2000
但我很願意跟一些醫學研究工作者一起合作,
18:41
to try to understand理解 how there can be these differences分歧,
383
1103000
3000
試圖找出這些差異是如何產生的,
18:44
which哪一個 are completely全然 at odds可能性 with one another另一個.
384
1106000
3000
簡直一個天上,一個地下。
18:47
But it's obviously明顯 a critical危急 question.
385
1109000
3000
這顯然是個不容忽視的問題。
18:50
The question is even if -- are there enough足夠 serious嚴重 injuries受傷
386
1112000
3000
問題是,即使,我們有沒有足夠多的車禍重傷的例子
18:53
to make these cost-effective經濟有效? It's kind of tricky狡猾.
387
1115000
3000
使得我們的研究花費物有所值。這真的很難講。
18:56
Even if they're right, it's not so clear明確
388
1118000
2000
就算他們的結果是正確的,我們還是無法弄清
18:58
that they're so cost-effective經濟有效.
389
1120000
1000
汽車安全座椅的性價比是不是真的好。
Translated by Vivian Chen
Reviewed by Dian Liu

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Steven Levitt - Economist
Steven Levitt's eye-opening Freakonomics took economic theory into the real world of suburban parenting and urban drug gangs, turning conventional wisdom upside-down.

Why you should listen

With his 2005 book Freakonomics (co-authored with Stephen Dubner, a writer who profiled him for the New York Times), Steven Levitt carried hardcore economic method into the squishy real world and produced a pop-culture classic. Freakonomics is both an economics textbook and a series of cautionary tales about the fallacy of conventional wisdom. Levitt examines the links between real-world events, and finds many instances where the data simply doesn't back up popular belief.

He asks provocative questions: If selling crack is so lucrative, why do dealers live with their mothers? Does parental doting really improve children's test scores? Did New York City's crime rate really drop because of police tactics (or population trends)? His controversial answers stir debate, and sometimes backlash.

Read Steven Levitt's Reddit AMA >>

More profile about the speaker
Steven Levitt | Speaker | TED.com